explain the importance of the use of force in enabling the Tsarist regime to survive the 1905 Revolution

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the importance of the use of force, in relation to other factors, in enabling the tsarist government to survive the Revolution of 1905. It could be claimed that the use of force before and after the Revolution of 1905 was the only reason that the autocratic system, led by the Tsar and his advisors, still ran the country after the Russian revolution of 1905 (by using such force to end it.) Sources A, B and C certainly support this theory, leading to the assumption that Nicholas II, proving his willingness to use force to put down even the slightest threat by the use of terrifying violence preceding the revolution, (the notorious 'Bloody Sunday' as described in Sources A and B prove that Nicholas II was open to use force, and did if he felt threatened) and then it comes as no surprise in Source C that when everything else seemed to be failing he readily brought it out again. But although force was used, Nicholas II, and his key advisors did not always resort to violence to solve their problems. ...read more.

Middle

to be an unprovoked attack whereas Source B gives a similar sequence of events but where the troops 'had to open fire' agreeing over the fact that violence was used, but the motives behind each differ. It is unsurprising therefore to hear in Source C that 'what finally brought the troubles to an end was the use of force' and we can now understand that Nicholas II would have had no problem with this. Perhaps the most significant and terrifying use of violence, excluding Bloody Sunday, was the use of troops to put down the St Petersburg Soviet and to crush those on strike in Moscow. Loyal troops were also sent into the countryside to restore law and order, which would have no doubt deterred them from their actions. But, Nicholas II did try, at first to subdue the rioting with peaceful methods. He re-appointed Witte as Prime Minister who advised him to make concessions, which he did with the October Manifesto. This allowed freedom of speech, freedom of the press, political parties became legal and an elected assembly was established (the Duma) ...read more.

Conclusion

Peasants could leave the Mir or commune and work on their own, and Redemption Payments were cancelled. Government land in Siberia was given to peasants who moved there. This satisfied peasants for the moment and was a non-violent method of calming the riots. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that although an undesirable and terrifying alternative, the force used by Nicholas II and his troops, proved to be a more effective solution to the rioting than the October Manifesto and Stolypin's repression. It actually resulted in the end of the Revolution. But this just leaves the question; to what extent did tsarism survive? The October Manifesto allowed the creation of an elected assembly, a small step towards democracy and reducing the influence of autocracy in Russia. Yet, although it seemed that autocracy was changing, in practice the Tsar's position and influence did not change that much. The Duma was introduced to bring an element of democracy to the Russian Government by allowing decisions to be made by an elected body of representatives but in reality this was not as effective as the Tsar had the power to reject or pass any bills he wanted, therefore undermining the Duma and having ultimate control of bills passed. ...read more.

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

and therefore the writer would have access to more information than the cartoonist of source G. This would result in source H being more accurate than source G, and they would therefore show different views of the influence of Rasputin.

The appointment of Witte as chief minister early in October was always seen by Nicholas as a means to an end. Witte had the political skill that Nicholas lacked and the October Manifesto was virtually dictated to Nicholas by Witte after Witte had negotiated its terms with the Union of Unions.

It is not surprising therefore that Russia did not launch a full-scale drive to industrialise until the 1890's. Ivan Vyshnegradsky attempted to drive Russia forward by increasing its exports and imports. This initially had the desired effect however it put a lot of pressure on the peasantry and in 1891-2

Or discontent fuelled by the horrors of a war yet to come."4 The peasants were still unhappy, as no serious attempt was made to share out land, regardless of Stolypin's reforms. The Tzar began to break the promises he made in the October Manifesto.

The fact Nicholas was forced to create legislative Dumas weakened the Tsarist government as this put its laws and policies under the scrutiny of the people. Now Nicholas had made promises and granted concessions but if he did not deliver true to his word the people would become distrustful of him and his system.

reform programmes continued up until his death on 20th February, 1997, just four months away from the handover of Hong Kong back to Chinese sovereignty. There was no power struggle after Deng's death like that that had occurred after the death of Mao.

Together with the defeat of the German Revolution of 1923, the NEP was really the origin of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev based themselves on the kulaks and NEPmen to strike blows against Trotsky and the Left Opposition.

The consequence of this was that, although many peasants still loved the Tsar, they opposed his government. At the end of the 19th Century, over 36 million Russians were threatened with starvation due to the famine of this time, and the government appeared to be doing nothing to rectify the situation.